Since the original thread (below) was getting long, but was going very well and in an informative manner, I continue the thread at the top of the list. Hope nobody minds.

I'm with a small "heritage museum" in my hometown that had collected a group of 5 pieces of railroad rolling stock prior to my return to this city in Southwest Georgia. The artifacts had been neglected, and two cabooses, which had been acquired by donation for the purpose of a stillborn excursion train, had been stripped out making restoration difficult, if not impossible within the limitations of available funding (which was zero when I came back home and got involved).

After 4 years of work, we received $500,000 to "restore" the collection, rebuild the display track and build a structure to protect our investment long-term. In this same period of time the collection doubled in size by the addition of 4 40-foot ACL/SCL boxcars and a Central of Georgia caboose hulk, and a preliminary collection management plan was established. The plan immediately made one of the original 2 cabooses excess since it was outside the 1940 - 1970 operational period established in the plan, and further, did not operate on any railroad that came into Georgia, much less Southwest Georgia.

Decisions on how to restore most of the artifacts was fairly straight forward (restoration is an ongoing project), but one of the cabooses presented an interesting situation. Bay window caboose Southern Ry X401 had not only been stripped out, but additional window openings had been cut into the sides. Ten years of exposure to the elements and vandalism had not left much to work with aside from the main structure. There was not a single board of the floor that was not significantly damaged at some point of its length.

After considerable thought and debate, it was decided to replicate as closely as possible an earlier SR caboose that had been purchased by a significant shortline in the area, the Georgia Northern Ry. Their X153 was a riveted car built in the '40s while X401 was an all-welded car built in 1969 by Gannt.

Taking advantage of the additional window openings already cut into the sides, the car became an exterior "stand-in" for the original X153. (Note that the stencilled identification as "SOU X401" was left intact on the center sill so its original heritage would stay with the car.) The interior was left open since the original configuration was undocumented and future use of the car at the museum has not yet been determined. The underlying decision to do this was that we had the car, it was already beyond restoration to as-built, and the original X153 no longer existed (as far as could be determined). Now we have an artifact that represents a part of the local railroad heritage. Is there anything wrong with this? I think not.

Although it would obviously have been more desirable to have the original X153, it was an impossibility for us. And what about those 4 identical boxcars? Well, they were a donation and cost us nothing to get moved to the museum save a little volunteer elbow grease. There are at least 3 different ACL paint schemes documented for this class car and two SCL schemes on the cars as they sit now. Do we need 4 identical cars in various paint schemes? Is there any advantage to being able to do this from the standpoint of interpretation? Maybe and maybe not. That is a decision yet to be made.

But I can tell you one thing. If the opportunity and funding were available to acquire an existing F-3 or F-7 of any heritage so that a replica of a Central of Georgia F-3 or Atlantic Coast Line F-7 could be exhibited at the museum, there is no question that it would happen. There are no CG F-3s or ACL F-7s that survive. Anyone out there care to share their wealth of redundancy with a relatively new, upstart museum trying to do a credible job of interpreting the local railroad scene? We might have a boxcar to trade!

Stephen

syfrettinc@bellsouth.net

Stephen, there was a request to share your experience in working towards replication of GENERAL and TEXAS some years back. Few others have ever gotten as far down that track as you did.

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> Stephen, there was a request to share your
> experience in working towards replication of
> GENERAL and TEXAS some years back. Few
> others have ever gotten as far down that
> track as you did.

> dave

OK, glad to oblige.

This was a very ambitious undertaking by a small group that had great interest and vigor but were woefully under-capitalized. Sound familiar, anyone?

Back in 1986 I became interested in the prospect of building full-sized operating replicas of the GENERAL and TEXAS for use at Civil War encampments /reinactments (near-rail sites) in the Southeast, mid-Atlantic and mid-Western states, and small town festivals within reasonable distance of Atlanta where the locomotives would be based. We also had the movie industry in mind as a possible use of the locomotives. We incorporated under the name of "Friends of The General, Inc." in November 1987.

Knowing of the JUPITER and 119 replicas, Mr. Chad O'Connor was one of the first people I contacted, and communication continued for about 2 years, from mid-1986 through mid-1988. One of O'Connors' engineering staff met with us in Kennesaw to look over the GENERAL. When it was all said and done, we had a quote from O'Connor Engineering Labs for $3.8 million for construction of the two replicas`($1.9 M per), excluding design, originally quoted to be $490,000. The research to date had uncovered no new documentation of the original locomotives. In fact, what we had was pretty much what had been documented by others including Wilbur G. Kurtz and Col. James G. Bogle in their extensive studies of these locomotives.

We consulted with Bill Purdie (who agreed to sit on our board) and with historian Franklin Garrett. We made sure the City of Kennesaw and the Big Shanty Museum did not have a problem with out plans. (They didn't.) We even attempted to get Ted Turner on board, but couldn't get through to him for a meeting. Everyone we talked with and pitched the idea to thought it was a great idea.

We talked with the Glover family (John initially, later with Bo) in Marietta about acquiring the Glover Machine Works site that they had put on the market. This would have become the base of operations for the replicas as well as a museum focusing on the Glover locomotives and machine works. (This was long before Dave got to restore the Glover locomotive now in Marietta. There were two other Glovers in the main shop building when we visited the property.) As I recall they were looking to get around $2.0 million for the site.

As to the particulars of the replicas, it was our desire to build modern locomotives with the outward appearance of the GENERAL and TEXAS. Fidelity to the originals was not necessarily going to be held to the standards applied to the JUPITER and 119 replicas (within 1/8 inch accuracy was it?). Roller bearings were specified, and they would have been oil-fired for ease of operation and refueling.

Wilbur Kurtz's paintings were studied carefully in making decisions about the outward appearance. I don't think there was ever any question about the TEXAS replica having the larger diameter drivers, but there was some soul searching regarding the GENERAL.

In one consideration, the GENERAL replica would look like Kurtz's GENERAL with ankle rails and third dome. However, from the consideration of what people perceived the GENERAL to be, that is, as it is exhibited in Kennesaw, and knowing this was a business, not a charity, there was alot of thought to build the replica to match the current appearance.

Since the 119 was also a Rogers locomotive, though about 14 or so years younger, we hoped to use patterns from the 119 in replicating the the GENERAL, thereby saving some on the $1.6 million cost. It was also considered that some patterns from the JUPITER might be OK to use for the TEXAS, again with some cost savings. Close enough for our purpose.

Unfortunately, the tough decissions never had to be made. I wish the case had been otherwise, but I soon was working on developing my professional career and the time and energy that went into the Friends of the General (or "FOG" as my wife liked to call it) went elsewhere. We could just never develop the interest to get the funds that would have been necessary not only to build the replicas, but to operate and maintain them, and purchase the home base property.

In short, a wonderful plan, but one with no financial support.

Stephen



syfrettinc@bellsouth.net